User talk:Zero sharp/Archive 20060501

Longde
Longde has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this article is more a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:NOT for the relevant concerns. If you can expand the article, please do so, or explain your plans on the talk page and remove the prod notice.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * go ahead and delete it. I will try to write a better article on all three ::sections (mind series, space series, instruction series) as they probably ::don't warrant individual articles (at least not to the level of ::detail/notability that is appropriate for WP.
 * Thanks for the heads up.
 * Zero sharp 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with keeping it. Just say on the talk page why you think it can be expanded.  Don't let people get all deletion-happy. If you do just start another page, you'll probably want this as a redirect anyway. NickelShoe 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't have the energy. I'd rather devote it to writing a better article then getting sucked into a deletion discussion vortex.Zero sharp 05:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You know you can just remove the tag, right? No voting needed.  But that's not to say that the person who originally proposed it won't move the discussion to AfD, but you could bow out at that point if you wanted. NickelShoe 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that actually, thank you. It's not clear to me the difference b/w Articles for Deletion and Proposed Deletion but I'll read the policies. Thanks.Zero sharp 06:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi I prod'd this article because it read like a dictionary definition at first, its much much more than that so I've deprod'd it for you, I wouldn't borther AfDing if you did remove it beforehand though, I wouldn't notice to tell you the truth. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 06:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks you guys, I appreciate the help.
 * Zero sharp 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion: use a real name
Hi, thanks for your your contributions to Wikipedia so far. I'd like to make a friendly suggestion: you might also want to consider changing your username before you get too invested in your current one. Although you are allowed to use just about any name, many Wikipedians encourage others to use real names. You might want to consider doing this. I can certainly understand that you might be uncomfortable using your own real name online, but, if that's the case, I recommend that you choose an alias that resembles a real name. For instance, my name is Nat Krause, but I could just as well have a username such as "Eli Miller" or "Abe Sokolov".

If you are choosing a pseudonym, please do not use the names of famous people or fictional characters. An obscure literary reference is probably all right. As always, please avoid anything that could be considered offensive or inappropriate.

Note that, on Wikipedia, you can use spaces and capital letters; for instance, "T. K. Truong" is possible, rather than simply "tktruong".

If you have a questions about this or anything on Wikipedia, please feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page. Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but absolutely not. I don't need to be harassed any further by rabid 13-year-olds who disagree with my edits. Zero sharp 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rogue (musician)
With regard to your first note on my talk page, cool, thanks for considering it. With regard to your second note, I think you may have gotten the wrong impression. That exchange was in regard to a person who has an article in Wikipedia, to wit Rogue, the musician. This was not a situation where a Wikipedia user was trying to remain anonymous, but, rather, where fans of a celebrity wanted us to remove a piece of information about that person. Now, I certainly agree that it was wrong for me to use the word "whim" in discussing the matter, but I'm not sure whether or not I was actually on the right or wrong side of that debate in hindsight. A comparable case might be the article on Sollog, where we did, eventually, decide to include his name. In the case of Rogue, it's become clear to me by now that we can't include his name regardless of whether he likes it or not, because we don't have a good citation. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Zero sharp 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your name-sake
Do you know anything about Zero sharp, aka 0#, your name-sake? I was reading the article and I saw this sentence: "If 0# exists, then a careful analysis of the embeddings of L into itself reveals that there is a closed unbounded proper class of ordinals that are indiscernible for the structure $$(L,\in)$$, and 0# is defined to be the real number that codes in the canonical way the Gödel numbers of the true formulas about the indiscernibles in L.". Initially, I was confused by it. I did not see how that could be correct as it stands. If a class of ordinals were indiscernible, then there would have to be other classes of indiscernible ordinals, e.g. {&alpha;+1 | &alpha; is in the given class of indiscernibles}. Then which class does 0# encode? Now, I notice that it says that the class is club, which answers that question. But if you know anything which would help explain the article, I would appreciate hearing it. JRSpriggs 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway. Sorry for embarrassing you. JRSpriggs 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
What article did I vandalize?? Georgia guy 21:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)